D&D (2024) 2024 Player's Handbook Reveal: Feats/Backgrounds/Species

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

Can I just suicide them right there, or do I have to bring the nonviable character to term in order to die to the first kobold I meet?

There's no such thing as an unviable character.

 

[TwoSix]

There's no such thing as an unviable character.

"Unviable" probably isn't the right word. Rather, there's a certain point where weakness crosses over from "engaging challenge" to "just tedious".

 

[Micah Sweet]

"Unviable" probably isn't the right word. Rather, there's a certain point where weakness crosses over from "engaging challenge" to "just tedious".

And that certain point differs from player to player, which is why no one can just declare a character "nonviable" unless they are speaking solely for themselves.

 

[TwoSix]

And that certain point differs from player to player, which is why no one can just declare a character "nonviable" unless they are speaking solely for themselves.

Terminology aside, the interesting question here is one of personal preference versus the social contract of the group.

How binding is our personal definition of “not worth playing” compared to the opinion of the group, especially if the group has tendencies towards “play what you roll”? At what point does everyone say “Yea, don’t bother playing that, just reroll”?

There’s no real right answer, but it’s certainly worth thinking about, as it can cause group contention if there’s a strong disagreement.

 

[Remathilis]

There's no such thing as an unviable character.

Sure there is. You could roll so poorly you don't qualify for any possible character class. You could have HP so low any threat at your level is a one shot, have strength so poor you cannot wield weapons or wear armor, have mental scores so low you are punished for casting spells, etc. depending on the edition, you literally can make a character so bad that you cannot play them RAW.

I get people who want to flex and declare they could play a character who doesn't have a single ability score in double digits, but I'm calling BS on it. A 3 Con? 1 HP per level? No. You're as dead as a doornail the moment you are hit once or step into a trap. You're going to have to excuse me if nursing Bobbo the Lame through a whole session until he dies to a kobold blade before I get to reroll doesn't seem appealing.

And if your "3d6 in order" characters somehow survived with mediocre ability scores and piss poor HP in AD&D, don't EVER tell me 5e is "easy mode." Your DM pulled every punch to let you live that long.

 

[Remathilis]

Terminology aside, the interesting question here is one of personal preference versus the social contract of the group.

How binding is our personal definition of “not worth playing” compared to the opinion of the group, especially if the group has tendencies towards “play what you roll”? At what point does everyone say “Yea, don’t bother playing that, just reroll”?

There’s no real right answer, but it’s certainly worth thinking about, as it can cause group contention if there’s a strong disagreement.

The game itself has defined nonviable characters. 3e had the reroll rule for characters who didn't get higher than a 13. AD&D could have characters who don't qualify for a single class. The game itself has tried to steer people towards high ability scores and reasonable HP as far back as the 1e DMG. It's not pouting because you didn't roll an 18, the game itself punishes you if your low score is too low.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure there is. You could roll so poorly you don't qualify for any possible character class. You could have HP so low any threat at your level is a one shot, have strength so poor you cannot wield weapons or wear armor, have mental scores so low you are punished for casting spells, etc. depending on the edition, you literally can make a character so bad that you cannot play them RAW.

I get people who want to flex and declare they could play a character who doesn't have a single ability score in double digits, but I'm calling BS on it. A 3 Con? 1 HP per level? No. You're as dead as a doornail the moment you are hit once or step into a trap. You're going to have to excuse me if nursing Bobbo the Lame through a whole session until he dies to a kobold blade before I get to reroll doesn't seem appealing.

And if your "3d6 in order" characters somehow survived with mediocre ability scores and piss poor HP in AD&D, don't EVER tell me 5e is "easy mode." Your DM pulled every punch to let you live that long.

Well, clearly you have strong subjective personal opinions on the matter...

 

[Remathilis]

Well, clearly you have strong subjective personal opinions on the matter...

Yeah. I've been playing for too long to have someone say "skill issue?" when discussing if a character is worth playing.

 

[ECMO3]

Sure there is. You could roll so poorly you don't qualify for any possible character class.

But for this to be true someone has to actually have rolled a character this low.

The statement is there is no such thing as an unviable character, which is subtly different than it is not theoretically possible for a character to be unviable.

The question is, do you think such a character actually exists?

The chance of rolling so low you do not qualify for a single class on 3d6 (no stat higher than 8) is I believe 0.000054 or 54 characters in 1 million and that is without considering racial bonuses.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah. I've been playing for too long to have someone say "skill issue?" when discussing if a character is worth playing.

Ok. If someone said that to you, it was unfair.